ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY - Vol. 1. No. 1
Apithology: An
Emergent Continuum
Will Varey 1.
Strangely, in a world of contrasting opposites there has
to date been no commonly held antonym to the term
‘pathology’. This paper proposes such a term and the
basis for its conception. The intention for doing so is to
open up the philosophy of the inquiry into the
generative health and wellbeing of humanity, possibly
even asking us to recontextualize the traditional
conception of a humanitarian ethic, in its entirety.
ABSTRACT – Apithology is the field of study
concerned with identifying and enhancing the dynamics
that enable the healthy development of emergent
systems. In this paper the definitional premise of the
discipline of apithology is explained and reasons are
provided why the depth of practice in this field is
predicted to increase. To illustrate the predominant
orientation from this frame the term ‘apithology’ is
contrasted with its conceptual antonym, being
‘pathology’. This preliminary introduction to the field
of apithology proposes a metaphor in a continuum of
development across two horizons of meaning as
complementary perspectives on the prevention of
disease and the generation of life. Elucidation is
provided as to why a balanced focus on both the
pathological and apithological may be desirable and
how the conscious application of this orientation might
assist in our collective endeavors towards the health
and wellbeing of humanity as a whole.
DEFINITIONAL ETYMOLOGY
Apithology is a word created to describe a timeless
concept in a modern context. It is not known whether
the word apithology also has an ancient meaning. It has
been formed as an entirely new term to describe a
distinct and novel conception. The term originally
emerged from the development of a field of practice
that in essence is the counterpart to its opposite, being
the research field of pathology. The origin of the word
apithology itself derives from the etymology of its
basic elements. By contrasting the etymological roots
of these two counterpart terms one can understand the
complementary nature of their relationship in
representing two distinct horizons in one conjoined
system of meaning. Looking initially to those
definitional terms:
INTRODUCTION
The investigations in the many disciplines within the
fields of medical pathology have yielded remarkable
benefits towards the survival of significant numbers of
people. In diverse parts of the world human life
expectancy ranges, particularly over the last century,
have increased, mortality rates have decreased and the
quality of human life has been enriched appreciatively.
This paper examines the progress forward from this
point. It predicts that as we, as a species, shift to a more
inclusive and humanitarian ethic looking to the
existence values for all, rather than predominantly to
the subsistence values for some, our emphasis of
inquiry will also shift, from an avoidance of suffering
and death of the many to the generative growth and
wellbeing of the all. That shift is identified as the shift
from pathology to apithology. This shift in orientation
will involve a profound shift in meaning.
Page | 1 Pathos~ (the root in patho-biology) - comes from the
ancient Greek.
In this context pathos has the meaning of ‘suffering’ or
‘disease’. Bios – from the ancient Greek has the
meaning, in this context, of ‘life’. Pathology can
therefore be understood literally, based on its
etymology, to mean the study of the ‘suffering of life’ –
essentially being the observation of any adverse or
detrimental abnormality in a naturally existing state. In
contrast:
Apic~ (the root of apithology) – derives instead from
the Latin.
Volume 1 - No. 1
ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY Vol. 1 – No. 1
In this context, it has the modern English meaning; ‘of,
at or forming an apex’ (as in apical). The suffix endform is the same as in bi-ology. Apithology can be
understood literally, based on its etymology, to mean
the study of the ‘apex of life’ – essentially being an
inquiry into the dynamics of generative or beneficial
alterations in a naturally existing state.
we may find it easier to understand the less familiar
terms, ‘apithology’ and ‘wellness’ in an emergent
context. It is worthwhile to look briefly some of the
common elements in these familiar definitions.
Pathology is defined as:
pa·thol·o·gy (p-thl -j ) n.
An antonym is a word of opposite meaning, a counterterm, used as a correlative of its synonym. Technically,
a noun, being a descriptive label for something, does
not have an antonym - its counterpart being merely a
different thing. The term pathology, in its wider
meaning, may be used as an adjective – describing not
only the study of something, but also the descriptive
quality of the thing studied (e.g. the pathology of the
system). It becomes a description of the qualities of the
phenomena being studied, as well as the particular
discipline of study that reveals those qualities. The term
‘apithology’ has as its antonym ‘pathology’ when used
in this particular sense (e.g. the apithology in the
system). The antonym of apithological is pathological.
In a similar way, the conceptual antonym of pathology
is proposed as apithology. In recognizing these
etymological distinctions we can use the distinct
concepts of apithology and pathology as converse
terms that frame counterpart and contributive
disciplines of study, which ultimately look at the same
phenomena, each holding a different emphasis in the
orientation of their inquiry.
pl. pa·thol·o·gies
1) The scientific study of the nature of disease and its
causes, processes, development, and consequences.
Also called patho-biology.
2) The anatomic or functional manifestations of a
disease: the pathology of cancer.
3) A departure or deviation from a normal condition:
e.g. “Neighborhoods plagued by a self-perpetuating
pathology of joblessness, welfare dependency, crime”
(Time). [Source: (The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, 2006) ]
The term ‘pathology’ has as its most common usage the
meaning of the clinical medical term and is seen in
references to the professional disciplines with expertise
in this area. Pathology also has a much wider meaning
in relation to its main subject of focus – being ‘disease’
generally (and deviation specifically).
Disease is tautologically defined as:
THE PATHOLOGY OF DISEASE
dis·ease (d-zz) n.
The language we are trained in and use in our collective
inquiries enable and at the same time limit our mental
conceptions of a problem (Popper, 1963). Terminology
creates subtle orientations for our paradigms of
approach and contributes to our continuous refinding of
predetermined resolutions to categories of presenting
events (Kuhn, 1996). Interpretation and integration of
new meaning and different perspectives as a premise of
an emergent inquiry requires that we first let go of and
then add to old meaning to make room for the new
(Bateson, 1972). The opening to an unfolding of
meaning is as vital to the generation of apithological
frames as delineation and definition with precision are
fundamental to the pathology frame. By examining
‘apithology’ as the counterpart concept of pathology,
we can begin to understand the less familiar term by
looking at the meaning of that which is already known,
then letting this understanding go and adding to this by
expanding the frames of our inquiries. Working with,
rather than against, this dynamic of human sensemaking familiar conceptions may guide our
consideration and understanding of the entirely new. In
contrasting the definitions of ‘pathology’ and ‘disease’
Page | 2 1) A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system
of an organism resulting from various causes, such as
infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and
characterized by an identifiable group of signs or
symptoms.
2) A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as
abnormal and harmful.
3) Obsolete. Lack of ease; trouble.
In the first meaning of disease, the focus of pathology
extends to any system of life. While a common focus
may be on human health, any system’s health that
concerns living things can be the subject of a study in
pathology. In the second meaning, pathology also looks
at the conditions of a society regarded as abnormal and
harmful. In this we see that the conception of pathology
extends beyond what science defines as abnormal, to
include that which society sees in itself as abnormal.
The distinction is also made that to be pathological the
condition must be seen as harmful to that society. The
third meaning is perhaps the most interesting, which is
Volume 1 - No. 1
ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY Vol. 1 – No. 1
the meaning of disease within the concept of ‘dis-ease’.
Pathology is also the study of the cause, processes,
development and consequences of the ‘unease’ we feel
as a psychological condition of humanity. Often the
study of something that has no object that can be
physically located will usually be moved from pure
scientific inquiry into the realms of the philosophic,
metaphysical or socially speculative. With the
contributive focus of modernity being on the material
and empirical, the potential for obsolescence in this
third meaning of the term is not unexpected. Within
these three usages that illustrate the usual ways of
approaching an examination of the pathos of the bios we can discover a concept that is found by a converse
definition, being apithology – or the apic of the bios.
Apithology is then defined as:
api·thol·o·gy (a pith l -j ) n. pl. api·thol·o·gia
1. The [systemic] study of the nature of [wellness] and
its causes, processes, development, and consequences.
Also called [apico]-biology.
2. The anatomic or functional manifestations of
[health]: the apithology of emergence.
3. A [conformance] or [adherence] to a [health
generating] condition: “Neighborhoods were enabled
by the self-reinforcing apithology of community
engagement, independence, kindness”.
This simple illustration of how a conceptual antonym
can give existence to the presence of a term that exists
in our conception, but is not commonly used, highlights
a pre-existing absence of meaning and possibly a
common definitional prejudice. We may often see in
the vision of a beneficial society a desirable state as
being, not the presence of wellness and health, but
simply (and only) as the absence of sickness and
disease, principally focused in the form of a delay in
the inevitability of death or decline. It is to the
potentiality that is inherent hidden within our own
definitional limitations that the disciplines of
apithology specifically orientate their inquiries towards.
THE APITHOLOGY OF HEALTH
Converse logic creates a valid proposition which arises
from interchanging the terms of another valid
proposition, as by putting the predicate for the subject,
and the subject for the predicate in a logical sentence
(e.g. no virtue is vice, no vice is virtue). For example, a
common logical proof in mathematics is, if two sides of
a triangle are equal, the angles opposite the sides are
also equal; and the converse must also then be true (i.e.
if the angles are equal, the two sides are also be equal).
The principles of converse logic may provide us with
an opposite and equally valid truth often known, but
previously not disclosed within our present awareness.
In using these particular disciplines the emphasis is on
inquiring less into the inherent pathology of our social
systems and more into the apithological potential that
exists presently in our societies. From this frame we
might then ask the new question: “Are our efforts
looking to find the causes of health and wellbeing or
merely seeking to create an absence of disease?”.
We can find by looking into the mirror-like definition
of pathology a workable understanding of apithology.
If pathology is an abnormal and harmful condition of a
system – the converse proposition is that there is a
corresponding ‘adnormal’ and healthy condition of that
same system. Just as the opposite of sickness - is not
the absence of sickness, the opposite of pathology is
not the absence of pathology (being the absence of
disease) - but is instead the presence of health –
otherwise known as ‘wellness’. Just as the antonym of
‘disease’ is found in the term ‘wellness’, the antonym
of ‘pathology’ is found in ‘apithology’. This mirror of
comparison shows new definitions arising from
converse propositional logic:
Where the two concepts of the presence of health and
the absence of disease are for us indistinguishable and
synonymous, the introduction of an expanded
conceptual horizon allowing for apithological
alternatives might extend the continuum of potentials,
making possible that which was previously
conceptually invisible, and definitionally unattainable.
If only for this reason, using the inquiry posed by an
apithological reconception of our most familiar
questions may yield new insight and fresh perspectives
with the potential for surprising innovations. To enable
this we may need to investigate the metaphorical
looking glass marking the boundary of the limitations
of our own preconceptions revealed by this conception.
[wellness] (wl ns) n.
1) An [api]thological condition of a part, organ, or
system of an organism resulting from various causes
and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or
symptoms.
FROM BEHIND THE LOOKING GLASS
2) A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as
[adnormal] and [health generating].
In defining two definitional polarities separated by a
perceptual barrier we can use the lineal fiction of a
3) Emergent. Lack of [un]ease; [un]troubled.
Page | 3 Volume 1 - No. 1
ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY Vol. 1 – No. 1
continuum of development to conjoin and contrast
these two frames as counterparts of one perspective
(Figure 1). Placing a two way mirror in the central
point of this fictional continuum discloses a view from
one side of the mirror as being the avoidance of
suffering and death leading towards a neutral and
balanced central equilibrium point as our highest form
of attainment. A perspective on the reverse side of the
two-way mirror that divides these terrains would see an
avoidance of growth and development as leading
backwards towards the lowest stasis point of
sustainable existence. Depending on which side of the
mirror we stand, our view of the system’s potential and
the potential for intervening in that system of our own
definition, is determined accordingly.
fictional mirror, we might consider the absence of
sickness and the presence of equilibrium at a nominal
place of normalcy, which may be suboptimal, as the
most desirable state. There is, however, a view from the
other side of the looking glass. This emergent
worldview sees the presence of wellness and an
absence of a permanent equilibrium as the most
desirable state where the living system self-generates
into new coherent forms of greater complexity and
coherent integrity. This proposes that we consider the
potential in any living system by the movement
towards its emergent potentialities of generative health,
which potentially are as yet unknown. This frame is
one that asks that we also inquire into unknowing.
pathos (suffering)
death
apic (wellness)
bios
life
Figure 1 : Continuum of Horizons
FROM BEYOND THE LOOKING GLASS
Using an apithological continuum of potentiality, the
concept of ‘normalcy’ is then seen as being any point
on the continuum as self-defined by differently held
conceptions. The distinction made within these two
orientations is one views normalcy as the presence of
health and the other views normalcy as the absence of
harm. The degree of presence and absence is what
defines a relative position on the fictional continuum as
being within these two views.
The fields of pathology and apithology will equally
involve the study of the cause and effects of changing
conditions in different systems of life. Examples of
such systems studied may include a single cell, a
germinating plant, a growing human body, a
functioning society, a single aspect of the global
condition of our planet – or extend into an inquiry of
the condition of humanity as a whole. The span of the
possible inquiry is limited only by our capacity for
conceptualization of that span. Our capability to enact
conscious actions within that span is then limited only
by our familiarity and proficiency in the actions
required to manage and enable the dynamics potentially
occurring within that expanded span. The disciplines of
clinical medical pathology to deal effectively with
disease within the human body are already well
advanced. Established sub-disciplines of medical
pathology include nosology (the classification of
diseases), etiology (the study of their causes),
cytopathology (cellular pathologies), serology (the use
of serums in the identification and treatment of causes)
and immunology (which looks at the structure and
function of the immune system itself). The expanding
focus on social dysfunction and societal disease seen in
the study of epidemiology, the patterns of depression in
society and mapping incidents of crime geographically
has generated new disciplines in empirical and clinical
sociology to statistically identify the presence of a
disease or abnormality from a defined desired state
The tension in an emergent system when in equilibrium
will be in the movement towards the polarities of either
apex-point on its continuum of potential (Prigogine,
1980). When a living system is unable to retain its
nominal point of present equilibrium (i.e. the nominal
position of normalcy at that time) it may either decline
into sickness, suffering and death, or move towards
growth into health, wellness and life. The dynamics
occurring within the system are what will determine the
direction of progression. In order to manage the system
as a whole conception, we would need to understand
the two sets of dynamics operating in the two horizons
of potential equally.
In adopting the perspective of a situated observer
within any unique conception we might privilege the
stasis of the living system as the most desired state,
seeing an abnormal condition as any movement away
from the position of nominal normalcy in the center
point of the perceivable continuum. If we have a view
predominantly from only the left-hand side of the
Page | 4 Volume 1 - No. 1
ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY Vol. 1 – No. 1
constituting normality in society. These disciplines are
well advanced with established communities of practice
and refined modes of discourse.
as static concepts within our societies, particularly as
more encompassing levels of consciousness gain a
greater capacity for a systems perspective on the
structural development of evolution of societies
themselves (Gebser, 1985) (Graves, 2002) (Kegan,
1982) (Erikson, 1998) (Wilber, 1977). A third
occurrence is the development of an understanding of
the principles of emergence as a counterpart to the
study of energetic dispersal in dynamic systems by
examining the potential of systems to align in cosupportive emergent holarchies (Koestler, 1970)
(Morowitz, 2002) (Prigogine, 1980) (Laszlo, 1996). A
fourth possible expansion is in the extension of theories
of autopoiesis into social systems and our conscious
observation of the patterns of resilience in connection
and generative dispersal in systems of social panarchy
(Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991) (Thompson, 2007)
(Holling & Gunderson, 2002) (Luhmann, 1995).
Increasingly integrative and unitive approaches to
evolutionary perspectives, particularly in understanding
the mind that perceives of biological emergence in
conjunction with the sociological and psychological
domains, would seem to naturally over time generate
the desire for apithological frames (Koplowitz, 1984).
The emergent view is one that will need to see both
sides of the continuum as one system in a co-dependent
dynamic equilibrium without division. The first step
towards this is a balancing of our worldviews. By
identifying the disciplines in pathology and apithology
we can see what is being looked at. We must also
understand why these things are being looked for.
The disciplines of apithology to deal with the causes,
processes, development and consequences of healthy
development of the human body, other living systems
and our societies are less well defined. They are,
however, already known to us, as the disciplines of
apithology are the disciplines of life itself. These
include the holistic health care of one’s body leading to
youthfulness in graceful aging, parental attentiveness to
the nurturing of a growing child, one’s own personal
development in a commitment to lifelong learning and
practice, the changes in stages of a maturing personal
relationship and the benefits of social resilience gained
from active engagement in community development.
Perhaps, the only thing absent from the field of
apithological practice is the naming of the field and the
identification of its already existing parts.
We may speculate on the reasons for an apparent
imbalance in the emphasis on the development of these
two complementary approaches. Some may argue that a
strength of monological methodologies predominant in
scientific empiricism is that they favor the isolation and
resolution of clearly identifiable detrimental conditions
(Ackoff, 1962). The presence of subtle-reductionism in
the semiotics of post-modern philosophy and the
lingering effects of Cartesian dualism on secular
inquiry may also have limited our capacity for creative
philosophy and generative epistemologies (Tarnas,
1991). Perhaps simply it is our ongoing obsession with
the continuation of our own existence in an avoidance
of death as the focus for life that creates a particular
orientation to morbid preoccupations (Reanney, 1991).
What may seem remarkable on reflection is that in
terms of time, research, funding, publications and
human effort we have been more concerned with
identifying the characteristics of death than the
qualities of life. Whatever the explanation, it is perhaps
more interesting and possibly more useful to examine
the early indications of the likely future increase in
interest in apithological practice, rather than the reasons
for its previous absence.
UNEASE BEYOND THE LOOKING GLASS
The shifts mentioned in the orientation of our
predominant conceptions provide underlying reasons
for the development of new practices to enact the many
emergent worldviews which inform a view taken from
the other side of the mirror. An integration of such
methodologies enables our progression along the
continuum of life, health and wellbeing. The
development of new disciplines will be symptomatic of
a more subtle effect that may eventually lead to an
increase in the depth of practice in the field of
apithology. That effect will be seen by a shift in the
questions we collectively are asking. Any such increase
will be reflective of the extent of the realization that the
creation of a system that is merely apathological (i.e.
without disease) will not create a system that, in and of
itself, defines enduring health. Within a worldview that
assumes that the avoidance of suffering leads to
equilibrium and peace we find a confusion in the belief
that life does not also involve death. Within this subtle
definitional distinction lies some evidence of our own
self-deception regarding an essential (if not noble)
truth. It is the unease in the pathos (the suffering) that
One reason for an expected shift in thinking towards
the apithological side of the mirror is the recent deeper
understanding of how the principles of Darwinian
evolution can be applied to the ecological conditions
for the biological, sociological and psychological
emergence of mankind (Teilhard de Chardin, 1955)
(Huxley, 1961) (Dawkins, 1976) (Capra, 2002).
Another is the development of new insights into the
biopsychosocial developmental levels of consciousness
and the corresponding alteration of views of normalcy
Page | 5 Volume 1 - No. 1
ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY Vol. 1 – No. 1
drives us so diligently to alleviate this condition we call
dis-ease in life. Amelioration of the suffering of disease
is essential for our survival and comfort. It is not,
however, essential for life itself to proceed. This
approach of amelioration of locational discomfort
provides only the means to sustain the potential for the
current life or life-style of the individual, but does not
sustain the potential for productive living for all. Once
we have created an equilibrium state of comfort
without pathology and an absence of disease, we will
have created a system with the potential for life. This is
but one of many essential steps towards creating
generative health. It is the actualization of the
potentials inherent within this state to which apithology
turns its attentions. In this way, the two horizons of
meaning generated separately in pathology and
apithology are found to be complementary, if not
inextricably connected. It is only their intentions that
signify the distinction in meaning.
From this orientation discovering the causes, processes,
paths of development and consequences that lead to the
emergence of the potentiality within a living system is
a challenge of great importance. It is one that is at least
equal to the historically predominant enquiry, the focus
of which, is the suspension of the potentiality of our
own individual death. Enabling the potentiality of life
for the benefit of all humanity is where we can now
turn. The species of mankind can then consider its role
in the collective potential in the emergent proposition
that is humanity in its own becoming. To achieve a
balance with our fixation on the prevention of death –
known to us by pathology, we may also need to focus
on enabling the emergence of life – known by
apithology. The increasing examination of our world
and our own development as a species explains the
need for a collective name to describe, in a word, that
which we already profoundly know and understand.
Through the development of this enquiry we will first
consciously acknowledge and confirm all that is known
about creating health and wellbeing and come to
understand deeply, that we are poised to seek and
discover, a great deal more.
THE EASING OF THE BIOS
It is a familiar assumption that the removal of the
pathology of disease will return a system to a beneficial
stasis. In stasis is found the illusory condition of
normalcy, a holding point in the perennial biological
struggle for existence. In this state of normalcy the
immediate prospect of extinction and death may be
eluded, but continues unabated. It is an important step
in the creation of the capacity for life. We are also
required to take a second step. When we examine life
from an evolutionary systems perspective, we do not
see the bios as the study of living things, but as the
study of the ‘thing that is life’. In apithology we refer
to life, not as the living existence of a single thing, but
the existence of systems that enable life in things and
the potential for their co-enacted evolution and
development through a continuous process of
generative development. Transcendence of a traditional
anthropocentric view of biology that relies on the
detached observation of its isolated parts, to a view that
includes ourselves as a contributor into a wider
evolutionary phenomenon in which we are participants,
may define the point of shift in perspective that marks
the emergence of apithology as an equal discipline of
inquiry. In understanding ‘life’ as a process of which
we are part, rather than something we or other things
possess, we may hold a perspective of greater humility
on our co-dependent origination with other sentients
occupying this biosphere. This is why we will seek to
distinguish apithology from the study of biology,
physiology and psychology to move beyond the
disciplines first pioneered by Aristotle towards a
modern integrative apithological systems perspective.
Page | 6 Will Varey 1
© 2008
1
Dr. William Varey is a researcher into the generative potentials of
humanity-level systems. His doctoral research considered the
dynamics of conceptions of health and learning within sustainable
social systems. He is the founder of the discipline of apithology and
lives and works in Melbourne, Australia. Volume 1 - No. 1
ASPECTS OF APITHOLOGY Vol.1 – No. 1
REFERENCES
Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and
Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W.H.
Freedman.
Ackoff, R. (1962). Scientific Method. New York: Wiley.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind . San
Francisco: Chadler Publishing Company.
Reanney, D. (1991). The Death of Forever: A new future for
human consciousness. Melbourne, Australia: Longman
Cheshire Pty Ltd.
Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections: A science for
sustainable living. London: Harper Collins.
Tarnas, R. (1991). The Passion of the Western Mind:
Understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view .
London: Random House.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1955). The Phenomenon of Man. (B.
Wall, Trans.) London: Collins.
Erikson, E. (1998). The Life Cycle Completed. New York:
W.W Norton & Company.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(Fourth Edition ed.). (2006). Houghlin-McMillan.
Gebser, J. (1985). The Ever Present Origin. (N. A. Barstad,
Trans.) Athens: Ohio University Press.
Graves, C. (2002). Levels of Human Existence. Santa
Barbara: ECLET Publishing.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life: Biology,
phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Holling, C., & Gunderson, L. (2002). Panarchy:
Understanding transformations in human and natural systems.
Washington: Island Press.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied
Mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Huxley, J. (1961). The Humanist Frame. (J. Huxley, Ed.)
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Wilber, K. (1977). The Spectrum of Consciousness.
Wheaton, Illinois: Theosophical Publishing House.
Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in
Human Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press .
Version 030101
Koestler, A. (1970). The Ghost in the Machine. London: Pan
Books.
NOTES:
1.
This article was originally published on 16 October 2004 and has
been revised into a format consistent with other articles in this series.
Koplowitz, H. (1984). A Projection Beyond Piaget's FormalOperations Stage: A general system stage and a unitary stage.
In M. Commons, F. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond
Formal Operations: Late Adolescent and Adult Cognitive
Development (pp. 141-157). New York: Praeger Publishers.
2.
For more information on this topic and to review discussions on this
and other articles in this series, please visit the community of practice
website at www.apithology.org .
3.
This paper is published as the foundation paper in a membershipbased knowledge resource. The first article in the series is available
free of charge. Subsequent articles are provided by donation,
subscription or participation. Full access is provided to contributors.
To share this knowledge with confidence, please refer all interested
readers directly to the original source library of online versions at
www.aspects.apithology.org where current copies of the entire series
of articles are maintained. If you have received a duplicate copy of
this article and have found it of interest, please consider contributing
your skills to the community of practice developing the expanding
body of research in this field.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
(3rd Edition ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laszlo, E. (1996). Evolution: The General Theory (2nd
Edition ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Morowitz, H. (2002). The Emergence of Everything: How the
world became complex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The growth
of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Page | 7 Volume 1 - No. 1